Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 12:36:31 11/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2002 at 15:15:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 27, 2002 at 13:48:50, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>On November 26, 2002 at 20:02:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 26, 2002 at 16:21:00, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>On November 26, 2002 at 15:58:06, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 26, 2002 at 15:55:56, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>So it is reasonable that on every program starting from a certain depth >adaptive null-move pruning will always construct a smaller search tree. >>>>> >>>>>Don't you mean the other way around? >>>>> >>>> >>>>Yes :-) >>>> >>>>Starting from a certain depth, verified null-move pruning will always construct >>>>a smaller search tree than the adaptive one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>GCP >>> >>> >>> I am doing some testing now. First thing I noticed is that for WAC, the >>>time-squared >>>measurement went down very significantly for your algorithm. And I have not >>>modified >>>anything such as turning null-move off when low material happens, since your >>>idea will >>>catch the zug problems. >> >>Have you tried Fine70? >> >>Frank > >Yes... and I told Omid that this is a strange case as if I allow null-move in >pawn-only >endings, which turns it on for fine 70 of course, things get wrecked inside the >search >somehow. A 45 ply search fails to see that Kb1 wins where normally an 18-19 ply >search is enough... > > >>> >>> Snap... and I have no idea why. I thought it was my implementation of a similar idea (from Bruce's site) of verification search, but I copied the scheme in Omids paper and it does the same. Frank
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.